Clear the cloud over the judiciary
The onus is on the lordships to protect the integrity of the institution in the wake of allegations of compromises by its members
The allegation of a massive cash haul being recovered at the residence of sitting Delhi high court judge, justice Yashwant Varma, has cast a shadow on the most important asset of the judiciary — its public reputation of unimpeachable integrity.
Reports suggest the matter came to light after a fire broke out at justice Varma’s official residence in Delhi on the night of March 14, at a time when the judge and his wife were out of town. After the fire was contained, first responders found bundles of cash, which led to official documentation of the discovery. Senior police officials were informed, and the matter was soon escalated to the highest levels of the judiciary and government. The incident and allegations sent shockwaves through judicial corridors, prompting the Supreme Court collegium to unanimously decide to transfer justice Varma back to the Allahabad high court.
Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna has hinted that more serious (and permanent) censure is being considered and might be on its way, sooner rather than later. Given the seriousness of the charges and the implications of impropriety involved — justice Varma was involved in a number of high-profile cases — the incident calls for a transparent and thorough inquiry. If proven to be a genuine case of corruption, the Supreme Court must act swiftly to ensure that the taint on the judiciary is excised with decisive action that goes beyond the mere transfer of a judge or punishment cloaked in opacity. It must also consider looking at the possible broader nexus involved in facilitating impropriety.
But there is also the question of wider institutional accountability. In a country where institutions have historically had a chequered history, the judiciary is one rare beacon that enjoys unprecedented public trust. Its biggest asset is the respect it commands for being impartial, untainted and process-oriented while retaining compassion for the ordinary person. No history of a modern independent India can afford to leave out the contribution of the judiciary in upholding the Constitution or determining the trajectory of the nation. But this is also why the apex court and the CJI must take a dispassionate look at the string of controversies that have dogged the higher judiciary in recent years, or the general perception of the lower judiciary among ordinary people. Whether it be judges raising questions of propriety by accepting post-retirement positions from the government, mounting questions of the money and political power leaving an imprint on lower court judges, a sitting high court judge expressing explicitly political opinion while still on the bench or another publicly delivering remarks that veer dangerously close to communal speech and unconstitutional thought, the higher judiciary has found its (well-deserved) public reputation dimmed. Unfortunately, its response has been far from satisfactory, comprising primarily closed-door meetings. It must do its utmost to dispel the perception that its response in such cases has been inadequate. It cannot afford to cite procedural limitations at a time when its action to quell certain controversies has been criticised as inadequate.
For decades, the Indian judiciary has zealously guarded its independence, passing landmark orders to (rightly) shield itself from the influence of the executive and gratuitous comments and references from the public. But judicial supremacy rests not on constitutional provisions alone but on moral authority. When public perception shifts away from viewing judges as principled arbiters, democracy itself is endangered. In addition to independence, the judiciary has to now take transparency equally seriously. The judiciary cannot afford to let public trust slip. Urgent, sincere remedies are needed.
